UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7235

JESSIE LEE CAULDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
MICHAEL MOORE, Director of SCDC; MARVIN GOODWIN, Plant Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-98-3257-2-17AJ)

Submitted:

January 13, 2000

Decided:

January 19, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessie Lee Caulder, Appellant Pro Se.
Larry Cleveland Batson,
Robert Eric Petersen, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Jessie Lee Caulder seeks to appeal the district courts order
dismissing his negligence action on the basis that the South Carolina Workers Compensation Act provided his sole remedy.

We dis-

miss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Caulders notice

of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district
courts final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.
P. 4(b)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).
and jurisdictional.

This appeal period is mandatory

Browder v. Director, Dept of Corrections,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361
U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
The district court extended the appeal period in this case,
granting Caulder until September 4, 1999, to file his notice of
appeal.

While Caulders notice of appeal was dated September 3,

1999, the prison mailrooms stamp indicates that he gave his notice
of appeal to the mailroom on or about September 8, 1999.

Because

no other evidence contradicts the mailrooms stamp date, we find

that Caulders notice of appeal was filed on September 8, 1999.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c).
untimely.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED